WORKING TO KEEP YOUR LICENCE

GET THE EXPERTS ON YOUR SIDE

WE'LL LISTEN TO YOUR SIDE.

YOU'RE NOT IN THIS ALONE

Our specialist drink driving lawyer, Steve Williams, recently gave a presentation on Common Drink Driving myths for the popular MMB business group. The presentation went down so well, we thought we would share some of the myths in this post.

“I need my car for work, so I can ask not to be disqualified for drink driving.”

False. Needing your driving licence for any purpose (work or otherwise) would not be grounds for you to avoid a disqualification.

“You can get points for drink driving rather than a ban.”

False. You cannot get penalty points instead of a ban, whatever the circumstances. Points are never given instead of a ban.

“I drank some cough mixture and it had alcohol in – this put me over the limit.”

False. Although some medications contain alcohol, you would have to drink it in enormous quantities.

“I have toothache and have been using mouthwash – it put me over the limit.”

False. Mouthwash is usually not swallowed, so would only affect mouth-alcohol readings. If you are charged on a breath test result, this is based on breath from your lungs.

“I have slept since I drank, I can’t be over the limit.”

False. Sleep, coffee and cold showers don’t sober you up. Only time will get the alcohol out of your system. You could have slept for hours and still be over the legal drink driving limit.

“I was in a pub car park – it’s private property so I’m not guilty.”

False. A pub car park is accessed by members of the public so you would be guilty of a drink driving offence if found to be over the legal limit to drive.

“My breath reading was below 50, so the police should have given me a blood test.”

False. The law changed on 10 April 2015 and the statutory option to provide a blood (or urine) sample was abolished. You can be charged on a breath reading below 50.

False. Not wanting to give a breath test is not an excuse for refusing to comply with the police request. If you have a medical reason, on the other hand, then you may have a defence if the police charge you with failing to give a specimen for analysis.

“I refused to give a blood test because I have a fear of needles so I have a defence.”

False. Just because you did not give a sample, and cannot therefore be charged with a drink driving offence, this does not mean you have a defence to the separate charge of failing to give a specimen for analysis. However, if you have medical reasons for not complying with the police request, you may have a defence.

“I refused to give a breath test. I can’t be guilty because I wasn’t driving.”

False. As above. Again, if you had medical reason, or genuinely made your best attempt, you may have a defence. However, if you refused because you simply did not wish to comply with the police request, then you could be found guilty of the offence of failing to provide a specimen for analysis. This is a complex area, call us now to discuss this with a drink driving lawyer.

“Putting a coin under your tongue will fool a breathalyser.”

False. This is an urban myth. It would not work. The breath test machines in the police station are very sophisticated and would not be fooled.

“You can drink 2 pints and be under the limit.”

Not necessarily. As people’s bodies process alcohol at different rates (depending on their gender, age, height, weight, build, when they last ate and drank and what they drank) it is not possible to identify a generic drink driving limit in terms of pints of beer, glasses of wine, etc. It is therefore better to err on the side of caution and not drink alcohol at all if you intend to drive.

“I’m good at talking, I’m better doing it myself. If I take a lawyer it looks like I’m trying to get away with it.”

False. Usually mitigation is more effective when put forward by a drink driving lawyer who is used to speaking within the court room. Even people who are used to talking in public can make mistakes, or appear arrogant when representing themselves. On the other hand, people who are nervous and not used to public speaking can feel overwhelmed by the experience. It does not look like you are trying to get away with it if you are represented in court by a specialist drink driving lawyer. Rather, it demonstrates to the court that you are taking the charge seriously, for which you should receive credit.

If you have been charged with a drink driving offence, or with failing to provide a specimen for analysis, please call our drink driving lawyer today on 01623 600645 for free, initial advice.

Our drink driving solicitors Mansfield were at Mansfield Magistrates’ Court this week, where Roger Buxton expressed his sincere thanks to Steve Williams, of Forrest Williams Legal Ltd, for helping him to achieve a better outcome than he had anticipated.

Roger, who had been charged with a drink driving offence with a breath reading of 59, was ordered to pay financial penalties (fine, costs and victim surcharge) and was disqualified from driving for a period of 12 months. On completion of the drink drive rehabilitation course (which will reduce the disqualification period by 25%), Roger will be able to drive again as usual in just 9 months.

The magistrates’ sentencing guidelines for this drink driving offence indicate that Roger should have realistically been looking at a disqualification period of around 16 months. He had therefore been expecting this result, although he hoped that being professionally represented at the hearing would help to persuade the court to be more lenient when sentencing him. Roger considered the money he had spent on legal representation as an investment, as he needed to drive again as soon as possible for work purposes.

Roger, who works 12 hour shifts for an engineering company, told us that he had held his driving licence for more than 30 years and that in all that time it had never been endorsed with any penalty points. He had, however, been disqualified once for a drink driving offence but this had been a long time ago. He told us that this previous offence had made him very aware of the need to be careful when drinking and planning to drive.

In Roger’s case, as with so many of our clients, the events which led up to him being charged with a drink driving offence were not straightforward. As drink driving solicitors Mansfield know all too well, there is always a story behind an offence.

Roger told us that, on the date in question, he had taken a couple of elderly relatives out for lunch and was driving them home when he noticed blue flashing lights some distance behind him. He indicated that he was going to pull over, and as he did so the car behind him ran into the back of his vehicle.

As other police officers then became involved in the collision, which was an indirect result of the police pursuit which had been in progress at the time, Roger was asked to give a specimen of breath at the roadside. As he was found to be over the legal limit to drive, he was taken back to the police station, breath tested again and subsequently charged with a drink driving offence.

Roger told us that he had felt fine to drive, having had a couple of pints of beer with his lunch (one of which was bought for him as a thank you for the meal, ironically). However, he accepted that he should not have driven after drinking, as he was aware of the risks involved.

Roger therefore pleaded guilty to the drink driving offence and our Steve Williams advanced mitigation on his behalf. Whilst the court could not condone his behaviour, they were mindful that Roger had been involved in the collision – and all that followed – as a result of other things happening in the area at that time.

It says much about Roger’s good nature that one of the things which bothered him most about the disqualification period was how he would best be able to continue to support his elderly mother, who has dementia and lives alone. Steve Williams was able to put this across to the court effectively, given the emotional distance afforded to a legal advocate skilled in mitigation for drink driving offences.

If you have been charged with a drink driving offence, and need drink driving solicitors Mansfield, call us today on 01623 600645 for free initial advice.

I bet you have, we all have. It’s just that in some cases, those mistakes, those misjudgements, end up meaning that you are guilty of committing a criminal offence.

I had the privilege of supporting a very lovely lady through her court case recently. She was charged with Drink Driving, she admitted and accepted it. In her words, “there was no reason for her to have done it”.

You see, she is an alcoholic. She didn’t consider herself an alcoholic until this happened, not really, more that when she drank she drank too much and made stupid choices, so she simply didn’t drink. She could function perfectly well without it, she didn’t need to drink to cope with life or even just drink out of habit. She had been dry for many years – she estimated at around 10 years. As a youth she had gotten herself in trouble, she had drunk too heavily and she had made some mistakes. So she just didn’t drink.

She got involved in a rehabilitation scheme and it was the making of her. She thrived in that environment, so much so that she went on to work with a number of charities and had dedicated her life since to helping others. I think most people that met her, spoke to her, and heard her story, would consider her a good person. She definitely didn’t see herself that way. She was mortified and disgusted with herself for having done it.

She suffers from migraines, and had been suffering from one for almost a week. Nothing was touching it, she was exhausted and just wanted to sleep. So she drove and bought a bottle of wine, hoping that a couple of glasses would relax her enough to sleep. Unfortunately they didn’t work and a couple of hours later she took the decision to go out for a drive, not for a moment considering the alcohol she had consumed earlier.

There was never any question of her pleading anything other than Guilty. She had spoken to a firm of solicitors before me who had assured her that there would be a loophole, that the police would have made a mistake somewhere, that something would be wrong, that she would get away with it. She didn’t want to “get away with it”. She wanted, she needed, to take responsibility for her actions and move on with her life.

There had been no accident, no reports of poor driving from the public, just a random stop by the police, and one our client was immensely grateful for, because in her head it meant that a bad situation had not been made worse.

We worked with our client, not only to make sure the courts saw her and not just the offence, but also to help our client realise that yes she had made a mistake, but that she was not defined by that mistake, and that all the good she had done and would still do in life was worth more than this one mistake. We supported her through telling her family, her friends and colleagues.

At Forrest Williams we understand that behind every case there is a client, a family impacted by this matter. You will have a dedicated case handler, you will have multiple ways of contacting that person so a method that works for you and your life is used – we know that if you work in a busy office you may not want to take calls during the day so it may be that we email or text and speak on your breaks when you can be somewhere private. We work with you and for you.

If you are charged with a criminal offence and want to work with a team who have won awards for their customer service levels then give the Forrest Williams team a call on 01623 600645.

“Drink Drivers – they’re all the same. Go out, get drunk, no care for anyone else on the road….”

Sound familiar? We disagree.

At Forrest Williams, solicitors for drink drivers, we believe that Drink Driving is an offence, not a person. We know that for every person committing that offence there is a reason which led to them being in the car at that point in time having consumed alcohol. We firmly believe that it is not our job to judge you, we know that in the majority of cases you will be doing enough of that yourself. We know that for many people what they really want and need is someone to support them through a very difficult time in their life and to help them get the best possible outcome they can in the circumstances. We know that no two cases are the same and because of that we tailor our support to each individual client.

The only thing we don’t do is tailor our prices. We know the work involved in your case and the fee you will be quoted is the same whether you are a footballer earning thousands of pounds a week or a teacher, a nurse or a surgeon. We don’t ask your income before we give you our price so you can be sure that the price you pay is a fair one.

Let me tell you about a couple of our recent clients we have supported through their court cases (names have been changed to protect our clients’ privacy).

Luke

Luke was a 19 year old boy, due to appear in Beverley Magistrates Court last month. He was the designated driver for the evening so had his 2 pints of beer at the start of the evening (between 7:30-9:00pm) and then stopped and moved to non-alcoholic drinks. He knew he would not be driving for several hours so thought he would be fine. He started doing the rounds about midnight dropping his friends home. As he drove down a side street there were cars parked along both sides and it was a tight squeeze, he misjudged the manoeuvre and clipped one of the cars. The police were called and as a matter of procedure he was given a breath test – he failed. His reading was 40mg. At 39mg he would not have been charged.

We were appointed by Luke’s dad to help him through the court case. He accepted the offence and the charge, he just wanted someone with his son, and to explain what was going to happen and when. We were able to persuade the District Judge of Luke’s good character and that the accident should not be held against him when sentencing. Luke was sentenced to the absolute minimum disqualification the court could impose – 12 months, and they also offered him the opportunity to complete a course which would further reduce the disqualification down to just 9 months.

Both Luke and his parents were very pleased with this outcome and later instructed us to assist them with the resolution of the Insurance Claim relating to the accident.

James

James hadn’t planned on drinking that evening, in fact he wasn’t even going out. He was at home, having been at work all day and was intending to relax and watch a film. His girlfriend rang him and suggested they meet at a local pub, it was already after 9pm and it was raining heavily and he had work the following morning, so he had no intentions of it being a long night, just a quick drink before home and bed.

When he got to the pub James’s girlfriend had a pint waiting for him, she told him she had been cheating on him and then she left. He drank the pint and then had another. In his words he was in a bit of a daze. He left the pub and went to his car. He drove out of the car park and the short journey home. As he pulled up on his drive the officers walked across to him – someone in the pub had reported a drink-driver. He knew as soon as they asked him to give a sample that he would be over the limit, he just hadn’t for a second thought about it before then. His reading was 57mg in breath.

He was charged to appear in Birmingham Magistrates just 10 days later. We arranged for one of our expert Barristers to attend with him and made sure that we were able to show the court his good character. The judge was sympathetic to James’ position and that he would lose his job as a result of this offence and sentenced him to the minimum sentence possible of 12 months disqualification (guidelines for his reading would have suggested a disqualification of 16 months). He was also offered the course to reduce the disqualification further.

James was very pleased with the outcome and that through representation and getting his side of the story across, he had potentially saved himself 7 months off his ban!

Our clients are never drink drivers to us. Each client is their own self, with their own story about how they have ended up in this position.

At Forrest Williams we listen to your story, we make sure the courts see YOU and not just the offence. We work with you to get the best possible outcome for you.

If you are charged with an offence then give the Forrest Williams team a call on 01623 600645. We are specialist solicitors for drink drivers, and we are here to help.

Tony Bryan appeared in Mansfield Magistrates’ Court and got a 24 month ban for drink driving 106 in breath.

Represented by Steve Williams, of Forrest Williams, Tony had been made aware that his breath reading of 106 meant that his penalties would be a disqualification within the range 23-28 months.

However, as Tony’s reading was in the third category, which meant the offence would be treated even more seriously by the court, he risked a community order instead of a fine. Tony’s case worker explained that he could be ordered to attend a course, be tagged, ordered to adhere to a curfew, or ordered to complete a certain number of hours of unpaid work within the community.

In addition, this higher reading may mean that Tony would have to meet with the Probation Services, who would interview him and write a report for court, with their recommendations as to what penalties be imposed. In practical terms, this could mean Tony would need to attend an interview and then a second, sentencing hearing.

Tony’s case worker, Tracy Johnson, assured him she and Steve would do all they could to avoid this happening. Although a disqualification was not what Tony would have wanted to happen, he accepted that this would be part of his punishment and wanted to be sentenced as quickly as possible, so he could move on with his life.

Tony explained to his case worker that he had established his own construction company four years ago, and that running his business without his driving licence would be extremely difficult.

He also informed his case worker that he had held his driving licence for 12 years, that he had never had any points on his licence and that he had never been disqualified for any reason. The drink driving offence, he explained, was out of character and had happened as a result of having drinks after work with a friend and then driving himself home.

Unfortunately, he said, he hit a kerb and this alerted a police patrol car. He was subsequently pulled over and breathalysed. When he failed the roadside test, he was taken back to the police station, breathalysed in the Intoxyliser Room and subsequently charged.

As Tony had no defence to the charge, he pleaded guilty. Steve Williams advanced mitigation on his behalf, which was considered by the District Judge. Taking into account Tony’s unblemished driving record when sentencing, the court’s ruling was that he be disqualified from driving for a period of 24 months, but that this be reduced to 18 months on completion of the drink drive rehabilitation course. In addition, a community order was avoided and, instead, Tony was ordered to pay a fine as well as other court costs. This meant that a meeting with Probation Services was avoided, as was a second hearing.

All things considered, this was a very good result for Tony and he thanked everyone who had worked hard on his case to help bring about this ‘better than it could have been’ outcome.

If you need help for a drink driving offence, call our expert team now on 01623 600645.

At Mansfield Magistrates’ Court this week, Adele Fox was relieved when she was sentenced for her drink driving offence. She told our Senior Solicitor, Steve Williams, that she had been expected to be disqualified for much longer due to the aggravating factors relating to her offence. In addition, she did not expect to be offered a place on the drink drive rehabilitation course, as she felt the court would want to make an example of her, and punish her more harshly.

Adele told Steve that she realised her outcome had no doubt been influenced by his assertive mitigation within the court room, and the skilful way in which he had painted a picture of her good character in court, whilst recognising the fact that she had hit a parked car while driving with a breath reading over the legal limit.

Adele had been driving the short distance home after a night out with friends when her car made contact with another vehicle parked at the side of the road. She told us that this was observed, and that the police were called. However, she stressed that this behaviour was out of character and that she had no previous drink driving offences.

Before the court hearing, Adele had prepared herself as best she could for the disqualification she knew would happen. She travelled to court with a friend, who drove for her, and she brought a letter of apology and a couple of character reference letters, as advised to do by her case worker.

She knew that for her reading, a breath reading of 79, the sentencing guidelines indicate that the disqualification period be in the range 17-22 months. Adele was expecting to be disqualified for 22 months.

However, on the day of the hearing, following Steve Williams’ forceful mitigation, the District Judge ruled that Adele be disqualified for 17 months and that she be offered a place on the drink driving course, the completion of which will reduce her disqualification by up to 25%.

Adele told Steve she was very relieved by the knowledge that she would be back on the road much sooner than she had anticipated, and stressed that she had learned her lesson from this one isolated court experience.

If you need help for a drink driving matter, call our expert team now on 01623 600645.

Anita Harrison received a phone call this week which, she said, meant there would be an end to her sleepless nights.

Steve Williams, Senior Partner of Forrest Williams, had taken a call from the East Midlands office of the CPS, informing him that the charge of drink driving had been discontinued, meaning that the case against Anita had been dropped.

The reason for this was that the CPS had recently received an expert’s report commissioned by Forrest Williams, which supported Anita’s assertion that she consumed red wine after driving, which had pushed her breath-alcohol reading over the legal limit.

Her assertion was supported by the fact that the police officers who had arrived at her house, on the date in question, had taken photographs of an opened bottle of wine and a wine glass, both of which they had marked liquid levels on. These photographs, in turn, formed part of the bundle of documents which were being used as evidence in the case against Anita.

Once a Prosecutor had reviewed the independent expert’s report, however, a decision was made not to continue with the prosecution.

Once we shared this news with Anita, she was understandably delighted. Having already attended Nottingham Magistrates’ Court twice, to enter her not guilty plea and for a ‘mention’ hearing, she was informed that the trial would be vacated and the charge against her discontinued.

Forrest Williams were also very pleased about the success of this case, as the charge against Anita appears to have resulted from a malicious anonymous call to the police regarding the fact that she was a drink driver, when in fact she had had just one drink in a pub before going home to shower and then spend the evening with friends.

She told us she had never planned to drive after having got changed, and that she had arranged for a friend to pick her up – hence the reason why she had opened the bottle of wine and had a glass while getting ready to go out.

Another successful outcome for law firm Forrest Williams, who offer a bespoke service to suit each client’s individual needs.

Auto-brewery syndrome, also known as gut fermentation syndrome, is a rare medical condition in which intoxicating quantities of ethanol (alcohol) are produced through endogenous (organism, tissue or cell) fermentation within the digestive system.

However, as the condition is rare, diagnosis is not straightforward. One case went undetected for 20 years!

The complaint can be traced back to the Japan in the 1970s, when doctors reported treating patients with chronic yeast infections.

In papers published at that time, the researchers described how all of these patients had an abnormal liver enzyme, which meant that they weren’t great at getting rid of alcohol from the body.

In one case to hit the news recently, 35 year old Nick Hess of Columbus, Ohio, told the media how he would become drunk every time he ate chips or other carbohydrates.

Before he was diagnosed, his wife feared he was an alcoholic.

Sometimes Nick’s symptoms would take days to develop, but on other occasions the onset would be almost immediate.

For Nick it was no laughing matter. He would become confused, slur his words, and suffer stomach pains and headaches. Every day for a year he would vomit on waking.

In desperation, his wife, Karen Daw, filmed him and played back the footage for him to see. Nick says he was terrified at what he saw.

In desperation, he approached his GP for help, but the initial reaction was the same as his wife’s – that he was an alcoholic who was in denial about his problem.

It was only when Nick was admitted to hospital for tests that the truth was revealed.

The condition means Nick’s stomach has an overgrowth of yeast, which turns any carbohydrates he eats into alcohol.

Nick now takes anti-fungal drugs and sticks to a special low carbohydrate diet, which helps to combat the condition.

Are you having issues with obtaining the return of your licence from the DVLA following the end of a disqualification period? Have you had your licence revoked or refused on medical grounds? Did you know that you can appoint someone to liaise with the DVLA on your behalf?

That’s what a recent client of ours did. He had been convicted of Drink Driving and served his disqualification. He had made the application for the return of his licence but then run into issues with the DVLA suggesting that he may require a medical before they were willing to consider his application further.

The client contacted us in despair, he had been going round in circles with the DVLA for weeks and was getting nowhere. In his eyes he had served his sentence and now just wanted to move forward with his life. It wasn’t even that he objected to having a medical if one was required, just that he wanted someone to talk to him and explain what was going on.

We spent time chatting to the client, we talked about why he wanted his licence back, the circumstances of the incident which led to his disqualification, how his life has changed since then. We ensured that we were able to answer any questions the DVLA may have and to try to ensure we could move this matter forward.

From our conversations with the client we did not believe he would require a medical, he did not appear to fall into any of the ‘High-Risk Offender’ categories and nor had anything he told us suggested that there would be a medical reason to suggest that he may not be granted the return of his licence.

We spoke to the DVLA, wrote to them, followed up again several times with them verbally until we were able to speak with a decision maker who agreed with us that our client would not require a medical and confirmed that his licence would be issued to him immediately. We were even able to obtain this confirmation from them in writing so he would be able to drive immediately and not have to wait for the new licence to arrive in the post to know it had been granted.

At Forrest Williams we have had success in appealing against revocation of licence, refusal of licence and disputes over the return of licence. If you are experiencing any of these issues then give the team a call on 0800 1933 999 and we would be happy to discuss your circumstances with you and to advise you on the best course of action for you.

Simon Parnell was delighted this week when he received a phone call from his case worker at Forrest Williams, informing him that the motoring charge against him had been dropped.

When Simon first contacted us, he made clear from the beginning that although he had been charged with Failing to Provide a Specimen of Breath for Analysis, and this charge had resulted in him receiving a summons to court, he had actually tried his best to comply with the request of the police.

Simon told us that, on arrival at the police station, he had immediately made the desk sergeant aware that he was in some pain, following his involvement in a car crash just a few weeks ago.

The car crash, he told us, had been serious – it had resulted in his car ending up in a ditch and his being admitted to hospital, where he had to have a dozen stitches in his head. Since the car crash, Simon informed us, he had been suffering with back spasms which were so severe that he had been unable to work and had been signed off indefinitely, covered by his GP’s sick notes.

On the date in question, Simon told his case worker that he had also been recovering from a bad cold, which affected his sinuses and his ability to breathe in the usual way.

Simon told us he had tried as hard as he could to give the required samples of breath, but that he was unable to for the reasons given above.

Once charged with an offence, he was so upset that he quickly arranged to see his GP, who wrote a supporting letter confirming that he was genuinely struggling with painful back spasms, and that breathing out for an extended period of time, as required by the breath test procedure, would have been very difficult/impossible for him to do.

We advised Simon that he had a defence to failing to provide a specimen.

Following an initial hearing, at which Simon’s not guilty plea was entered, a copy of his medical records was requested and reviewed. These documents showed that Simon’s account of the pain he was in, and the medical treatment he had sought accordingly, were accurate.

Simon’s case worker liaised assertively with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) at this point, with the request that the charge against Simon be discontinued on the basis that he had medical reasons for not providing the required samples of breath. It was respectfully pointed out to the CPS that at no point had the police elected to request either blood or urine samples, both of which could more easily have been provided by our client. The case worker involved also informed the CPS that Simon had made clear to the police officers concerned that he was in pain, and that the level of pain he was in made it impossible for him to give an extended breath, as the breath test procedure required. This important information, however, appeared to have been ignored.

As a result of the contact from Forrest Williams, a Prosecutor from the CPS reviewed the case and a decision to discontinue the charge against our client was taken.

Simon was understandably delighted when he received this news. It meant that he no longer faces a potential disqualification from driving, and can now focus his energies on a return to full health.

He thanked his case worker and all in the Forrest Williams office for their support and assistance through what had been a very stressful time of his life.

If you have been charged with failing to provide a specimen, contact our expert team now on 01623 600645.